Some random discussion on evolution...

[xianghua]

So you assume that gears=design

sure. you dont?

 

[Speedwell]

so take a look at this ufo photo:

say that that object is real for the sake of the argument. can you say why you conclude design?

(image from wiki)

Of course it's a real object. A real unidentified flying object.

What makes you think we would conclude design just from that photo? How can we tell from the photo that it was intentionally manufactured?

 

[Speedwell]

sure. you dont?

Not unless we can tell if they were intentionally manufactured.

 

[pitabread]

so take a look at this ufo photo:

say that that object is real for the sake of the argument. can you say why you conclude design?

(image from wiki)

We've had this discussion before. Photos of fake "UFOs" were typically made using common objects like hubcaps, lamp shades, etc.

Having that knowledge and having knowledge that such objects are the result of human manufacture, yes it's possible to conclude that is a designed object. But all of that is based on pre-existing knowledge.

If you want to argue that biological organisms are a result of design, then you need to start by explaining how biological organisms were created. Then you can use that knowledge to determine what would be indicators of design in those organisms.

Can you do that?

 

[dad]

Again, the circular logic...

Nothing circular about observing objectively what is unequivocally designed!

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing circular about observing objectively what is unequivocally designed!

But "looks designed" is not an objective test. Even two IDists might not agree that a particular object "looks designed. How do you resolve the difficulty? For example, is this object designed?

 

[VirOptimus]

Nothing circular about observing objectively what is unequivocally designed!

How can you (a subject) see things objectively?

 

[dad]

And if nature made the rocks, they still could have been designed. That's the nature of the design hypothesis--it's unfalsifiable. I can claim the rocks were designed and you can never prove me wrong.

No. Design implies direct action. A designer of a house does not let nature and weeds over centuries carve the house the way he designs.

 

[Speedwell]

No. Design implies direct action. A designer of a house does not let nature and weeds over centuries carve the house the way he designs.

But if he intended to produce a house that way, then it is designed. Design implies intention, not necessarily direct action.

 

[Ophiolite]

No. Design implies direct action. A designer of a house does not let nature and weeds over centuries carve the house the way he designs.

Interesting. You presume to know how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would go about design work. That's a powerful swatch of self confidence you have there. I could have used that when I was in sales.

 

[dad]

How can you (a subject) see things objectively?

God gave me a brain?

 

[dad]

But if he intended to produce a house that way, then it is designed. Design implies intention, not necessarily direct action.

Well if he did he was not too bright. Intelligent architect's work is recognizable and doesn't need a team of interpreters to decide if it was even designed!

 

[Speedwell]

Well if he did he was not too bright.

Still, it's design.

 

[pitabread]

It's interesting that when creationists are asked how to detect design (even for known designs), they can't seem to articulate how they do that. Yet at the same time they keep trying to argue living things are designed.

An odd contradiction.

 

[VirOptimus]

God gave me a brain?

I’ll refrain from the obvious joke.

You couldnt answer.

 

[dad]

But "looks designed" is not an objective test. Even two IDists might not agree that a particular object "looks designed. How do you resolve the difficulty? For example, is this object designed?

If it is that hard to tell, who cares!?

The heavens scream out the glory of God, and the earth is filed with His wonders.

 

[dad]

Interesting. You presume to know how an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God would go about design work. That's a powerful swatch of self confidence you have there. I could have used that when I was in sales.

Yes I know how He designed New Jerusalem also. Once we believe that He created it all, there is wonder in looking at butterflies, hummingbirds, stars, nature, ants, babies etc etc etc etc.

 

[Speedwell]

If it is that hard to tell, who cares!?

The heavens scream out the glory of God, and the earth is filed with His wonders.

I believe you, but still you have no way of objectively identifying intelligent design. You might just as well say that everything is "designed" even those objects which were produced by natural forces.

But then, of course, you are no longer an IDist, merely a theist.

 

[dad]

Still, it's design.

God is not a barely detectable insignificant dull witted designer. His creation yells out in wonder. I think the issue is that some folks who like to omit Him from their lives and knowledge want to attribute the wonders of creation to fluke and evolution and happenstance etc.

 

[dad]

I’ll refrain from the obvious joke.

You couldnt answer.

You did not have the ability to discern the answer I gave.